More Federal Jobs! Hey, look what it did for Greece.
06/20/10 02:07 PM Filed in: Progress to Poverty
The Obama Administration is at it again. Okay, so when did they ever stop? Fair question.
The Administration has issued new guidelines aimed at expanding the work handled by federal employees and lessening federal government contracts with the private sector.*
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy has issued proposed guidance on when agencies should have work done by federal employees vs. contracting it out. Under the guidance:
- “Inherently governmental functions” -- ones intimately connected to the public interest -- should be performed by federal employees.
- Federal employees should be given special consideration for work “closely associated” with inherently governmental functions; if this work is contracted out, agencies should provide enhanced oversight of contractors.
- “Critical functions” -- ones needed for the agency to perform effectively and achieve its mission -- should be performed by federal employees to the extent necessary.
With a deficit that’s expanding at warp speed and no end in sight, once again one is left asking, “are you stupid, or just plain evil.” Well, this Administration is generally not stupid. However, they give every appearance of believing that the American public is. After all, ignorance of the masses is a basic tenant of Progressive planning.
We Americans may sometimes suffer from relatively short attention spans, but has anyone really forgotten Greece already? C’mon. While they are apparently still performing the arduous task of figuring out, for the first time, how many employees are on the government payroll, their Nanny State’s roster is estimated at holding approximately one-third of their population.
As you’ve likely read, our Chief Exec had almost half of a million new heads added on to Team Fed (the Census) in April alone. The DoD has been working on increasing its in-sourcing since last year and now the rest of the Federal family is going to focus on in-sourcing.
Could this result in greater efficiency and cost savings? Sure, and the Easter Bunny is going to bring it to us in his basket. This is the federal government we’re talking about. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy has asked agencies to ensure that they have enough employees in-house to manage functions critical to the agency’s operations and mission. Who here thinks we may see more than a little expanded federal hiring?
The plan for the Nanny State is being unleashed faster than upchuck at a food-poisoned cruise -- and, it smells worse, too. The Obama-mama’s going to give you your jobs, determine (and withhold) your rights, and generally see to your welfare (on welfare), while the chosen elite enjoy the fruits of mass labor. That’s the current weather forecast on the Progressive radar.
Remember in November.
Read more: Firms fear feds will insource more contracts - Phoenix Business Journal
See also, http://www.newsmax.com/WayneAllynRoot/debt-greece-financial-crisis/2010/05/10/id/358490
*Source: Office of Federal Procurement Policy
0 Comments
The Census has Run Amok - Part II
06/16/10 08:31 PM Filed in: Progress to Poverty
As for my second point as to why the 2010 Census is crazy, think about how much tax payer money is being spent on it: $14B. That’s 14 followed by nine zeros – all to the left of the decimal. That’s $14,000,000,000.
Why should we worry about that? The federal government tosses around billions like drunken sailors with a pocket full of $1’s at a nudie bar.
Let’s give this some perspective. The 2000 Census cost between $4.5 and $6.5 billion, depending on who you ask. Using the Dollar Times calculator (http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm) to adjust for inflation, this 2000 Census cost range should fall between $5.77B and $8.34B in 2010 dollars.
Further, the population increased by about 9% during the 2000-2010 decade. Of course, not all of these are new households. The ratio of individuals to households according to the 2000 census was 2.8:1. So, let’s adjust accordingly and add another 3% in costs to our baseline. Therefore, adjusted for inflation and increase in number of households the 2010 Census budget would need to fall between $5.94 and $8.59B to have parity with the 2000 Census.
However, as you’ll recall, the 2010 Census had 66% - 90% fewer questions than the 2000 Census. Let’s be conservative and calculate the savings of a simplified form at 15%. The savings should probably much higher, but let’s err on the side of conservative numbers for a stronger argument. The final adjusted budget should be $5.05 and 7.3B. Of course, this also assumes that the 2000 Census budget wasn’t a federal boondoggle to begin with, but let’s save that analysis for another day.
Simple math shows that, even after adjusting for inflation and increased population, we’re now somewhere between 192% and 277% over 2000 Census costs.
Excuse me?
I thought the U.S. was struggling under an enormous federal deficit. Oh, that’s right. I forgot the game plan. We’re going to spend our way out of the economic meltdown. That’s what you do when your ship is sinking and you’re cold – you burn the lifeboats to keep warm, right?
Of course, there is more method behind the madness. This is an election year. If the incumbents (i.e., largely progressives) don't’ want their hats and coats handed to them in November, they need to buy some time.
How to do that? Well, to make the Peoples happy you have to tell them what they want to hear. And, the Peoples want to hear about jobs and an improving economy. “But, the economy is in the crapper and we don’t have new jobs,” thinks the Chief Exec. No problem. We’ll make them up. Ah ha. What can we do with the Census?
Well, first we can use it to hire more Americans. If they don’t have a job, the Nanny State will give them one. Come to mamma. Hey, it’s worked really well for Greece, why are you knocking it?
Further, by giving them jobs, we can keep them off the jobless roles. That’s a two-fer. Moreover, what do politicians generally do with a “good” (for them) thing? If it’s good, you make more. So, now it appears that they are recycling Census workers, in effect giving this plan a multiplier effect.
Think that’s crazy? Here’s an interview with a Census worker who’s been hired, placed on inactive status, and “reactivated” five times who thinks this is exactly what’s going on:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/03/census_worker_claims_job_numbers_are_being_inflated.html
Again, let’s not just take opinion and conjecture as fact, even if it does make a lot of sense. Our own President, while pumping the great increase in jobs, even admitted that 95% of the newly created jobs in April came from the government’s hiring of Census workers.
As many of you know, the above analysis is just the tip of the iceberg here.
Remember in November.
Further Reading*. Here’s are a few interesting blog posts for further reading:
http://news-political.com/2010/06/08/economy-slumping-because-of-government-efforts-to-turn-it-around/
http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/02/15/is-obamas-census-grab-unconstitutional/
*These links are for readers’ reference. There is no affiliation or endorsement between any of the blogs cited above (or their authors) and DrollTroll.com or its author/contributors.
Holy Schnikies, The Census has Run Amok
06/08/10 12:24 PM Filed in: Progress to Poverty
Consensus on the Census: It’s Insane
The Census is crazy! Yes, this is just nuts. Okay, please allow me to clarify. The Census, in and of itself, can be a useful tool. But hey, a Smith & Wesson can be a useful tool, as well; particularly if the local neerdowells are paying a visit to your garage at 2:00 a.m. However, you’ve got to be cautious where you point that thing.
And that’s what brings me to my first point about the 2010 Census. Where are they pointing that thing?
As best I can discern from having done my civic duty, the 2010 Census form is essentially pointed at one thing, other than a general population count. What could this be? What would you ask, if you could ask every household in America to tell you one thing?
In the case of our current Administration (yes, the Obama Administration is running the show here), that one question is “Are you Hispanic?”
That’s really it.
It is true that this question is not new. It’s been on the Census for a while. Progressives have been with us for a while, too. But, maybe that’s just coincidence.
In the 2000 Census the order of the questions regarding race was reversed to their now odd (i.e., telltale?) order. That is, previously the general question about race came first and the specific question regarding Hispanic origin came second – at least a logical progression of asking the general before narrowing to the specific.
Someone took the conscious and deliberate step of reversing the logical order of the general race question and the specific Hispanic question. Why? It wasn’t a mistake. It wasn’t a hold-over. It was change. And, changes like this aren’t willy-nilly. They mean something. Yes, as of the 2010 Census, the main data point was moved to the fore.
What struck me even more was that in shrinking the form from its previous 30+ questions (100+ on the long form) to just seven basic queries (10 depending on how you count questions), the primary focus becomes much clearer. I had expected various questions, as in past questionnaires, relating to education, work, income, and commuting. Nope, just seven simple facts to ascertain.
Let’s think. When one pairs down a list, what does one remove? Do you remove the most essential elements or the least relevant for your purposes? And, when you eliminate over 90% of the questions, the remaining handful of questions must, by necessity, be only those that are absolutely critical to your agenda. Right?
So, now we know what’s important. How many of there are you and are you Hispanic. That’s the heart of this Census.
Next, let’s think about why this information is collected. That’s easy. The U.S. Government will tell you:
Census information affects the numbers of seats your state occupies in the U.S. House of Representatives. And people from many walks of life use census data to advocate for causes, rescue disaster victims, prevent diseases, research markets, locate pools of skilled workers and more.…In fact, the information the census collects helps to determine how more than $400 billion dollars of federal funding each year is spent on infrastructure and services like: Hospitals Job training centers Schools Senior centers Bridges, tunnels and other-public works projects Emergency services
That’s a direct quote from the U.S. Census Bureau itself:
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/why/index.php
Therefore, if we focus on the government uses of this information, we arrive at the following:
- in order to determine how to best draw voting district lines, we need to understand how many people live where and how many of them are Hispanic; and
- in order to determine how to spend more than $400 billion tax dollars, we need to understand how many people live where and how many of them are Hispanic.
Am I the only one who finds it troubling that the determination of voting districts and the allocation of $400B tax dollars is decided based on how many Hispanics (or any other particular race for that matter) live in certain areas?
But, hey, I’m just some ranting blogger. I probably jumped to conclusions in making the above associations. More crackpot conspiracy theory, right? Well, you needn’t take my word for it -- the U.S. Government will tell you the same thing:
Direct Quotes from the Census Bureau’s own FAQ*, editorial comments in brackets:
QUESTION 18. Why does the Census Bureau ask about race and Hispanic origin?
ANSWER: …Information on race is required for many federal programs [i.e., there’s your $400B] and is critical in making policy decisions [e.g., how to apportion much more of the Federal budget beyond the $400B], particularly for civil rights [specifically for Hispanics?].
States use these data to meet legislative redistricting principles [redistricting for Hispanics – remember, that’s the question that the Census Bureau themselves posed above and are answering here – I didn’t say it, they did!].
Race data also are used to promote equal employment opportunities [for Hispanics – again, this is your government talking, not me] and to assess racial disparities in health [ObamaCare to the rescue] and environmental risks [i.e., more tax-funded programs].
QUESTION 19. Why doesn’t the race question include more categories?
ANSWER: The race categories are those that are approved for data collection purposes by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. For more information, visit the Office of Management and Budget Web site at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
fedreg/1997standards.html.
[What the heck kind of answer is that? It sounds like, “We’re the Government. Nanny-nanny-boo-boo!” In other words, we focus on Hispanics rather than other minorities because that’s what the Obama Administration told us to do. We’re not going to tell you any more than that. Go spin your wheels at whitehouse.gov, if you want to waste your time trying to look further.]
*Source: http://2010.census.gov/partners/pdf/ConstituentFAQ.pdf
Some may argue that the race information collected is not limited to Hispanics. If the real focus were on race as a general matter, one would think a simple race checklist would suffice. (I have major issues with the use of race information for these purposes, but let’s not digress.) The first and foremost question is “Are you Hispanic?” It is not, “What race are you?” The Hispanic data must be broadly and accurately recorded because it is the most important.
Why focus on Hispanics? Have you looked at demographic projections recently? The Census Bureau has a ton of information on this, too.* They don’t hide the ball.
* http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic/hispanic.html
For one, every politician worth his bully pulpit knows that, in the current system, you have to give (tax payer money) to get (votes). Further, the progressive agenda requires appropriate redistribution of wealth to support several tactics and the ultimate goal, which is not an even distribution of wealth. For those of you who are drinking the Kool-Aide on this one and waiting for the Government to climb down your chimney in a big, red Santa suit, don’t hold your breadth. Big bucks will be collected and spent, but individuals in the general population will see only nickels and dimes at best -- and those of us who still have a job won’t be on the receiving end of this cash flow.
Before anyone out there in TV land starts calling me a racist (okay, probably too late), let me attempt to clarify that nothing in the above is intended as a slight on or negative comment about people of Hispanic origin. I have numerous friends and respected colleagues of Hispanic origin and I’m truly not trying to get into race issues here. This post is about the insane progressive agenda in our government and how it is being implemented.
Those of Hispanic origin should be as wary as anyone else. The Progressives’ goal is not to make the governed masses wealthy and happy. No, the Progressives’ goal is control. Control of the people, the wealth, the means of wealth, etc. If they achieve their goals, they will then truly become color/race blind. That is, we will all be equal in the eyes of the Nanny State. Equally poor, disenfranchised, and controlled.
The Progressives are coming out of the closet. They identify themselves as such. They preach their pap as if it's a good thing. It sounds like “C’mon honey, it’s just another spoonful of mother’s arsenic to make you better.” That’s scary. No matter how much sugar-coating they put on it, trust me, that brown stuff inside isn’t chocolate.
Remember in November.
More about why the Census has run amok in my next post.
Further Reading*. Here’s another interesting blog post for further related reading:
http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/02/15/is-obamas-census-grab-unconstitutional/
*These links are for readers’ reference. There is no affiliation or endorsement by or between any of the blogs cited above (or their authors) and DrollTroll.com or its author/contributors.
Caution: This Island Prone to Tip
06/03/10 09:55 PM Filed in: Stupid Pol Trix
Everyone to the other side of the island, before it tips!
This isn't new news, but how can I resist commenting on the inane comments of Rep. Hank Johnson regarding his fear that adding 8,000 troupes to the island of Guam would actually cause the island to tip over. The good Representative of Georgia actually stood before the House Armed Services Committe earlier this year and argued this with a straight face. Really. I couldn't concoct this cow pie if I wanted to. The mind boggles. Take a gander: YouTube Clip (opens in a separate window).
For those who are interested (perhaps the good representative’s staff could have helped him with some of this), the U.S. invasion force of 8,000 troupes would add about 5% to Guam’s current population of approximately 175,000.
However, that’s not really the point. Like other islands, Guam is attached to the sea floor. It does not frantically bob about like a toy boat in Junior’s bath every time Junior tries to put one of his G.I. Joes aboard.
Now, whenever someone asserts a position so ludicrous, one question that comes to mind is, "who hired this guy?" That would be every voter in Georgia who voted for him. So, all you ninnies, into your room and hand over the keys to that voter registration card. You're in time out.
The next line of questioning should be, "How can we stop the damage?" Think about it. If this doesn't throw every other decision and action, past, present, and future by the good Congressman into question, then we've all fallen through the looking glass. I mean, what's next? State controlled health care? Whoops.
As we all know, every Congressman and every Senator receives their paycheck from whom? Okay, for the sake of this question, ignore the soft campaign contributions and any other suspected sources of possible income. What is the only real source of government funding? Their entire entourage gets paid from whom?
If one tax-fed fuss bucket makes such an inane argument in public, we should not suffer one word about how hard he or she works and how difficult the job is. No excuses. That's it. Done. We need representatives in our nation’s and states’ capitols that have enough mental horsepower to get over island-tipping paranoia.
This fine example of the kind of high intellectual acuity we have in Washington demonstrates one thing very well. The Obama-mama was right when he said we need change. We do. We need more folks who can think their way out of a paper bag, for one thing. And, every progressive, bleeding heart blubberhead who is working to take us down the path of socialism, or worse, is either too stupid or too evil to be in charge of anything more complicated than a box of crayons.
The Latest War - Fad or Fixture?
05/23/10 01:30 PM Filed in: Progress to Poverty | Legislative Lunacy
America loves wars. I’m not talking about smart bombs, Humvees, and tough, young, battle-ready troupes. I’m talking about our penchant for pulling out the stops to defeat all evils, real or imaginary, by waging war. How many of these wars have we been in?
Here’s a start:
The war on alcohol.
The war on poverty.
The war on drugs.
The war on cancer.
The war on illiteracy.
The war on salt.
The war on fat.
The war on terror.
Did you realize that you may be the target of the latest war? That’s right.
If you make too much money, you can now put yourself in line and rub shoulders with cancer and terror. You -- you filthy, rich, sick bastard -- you are the new evil. So, just own up and get over it. We’re bringing the war to your doorstep and your wallet.
Certain commentators have called all of this “war on the rich” talk overblown squawking by the fanatical Right. After all, the intended rise in income taxes only raises income tax back to Clinton-era rates, right? And, the new -- as in never before heard of -- Obamacare tax on “investment income” from a house sale only applies to you money-grubbing overlords who make more than $200,000 individually ($250,000 jointly); and then, allegedly only to “investment income” exceeding $250,000 individually ($500,000 per couple).
So, what are you whining about? This new tax will only affect a small percentage of the population and only applies above and beyond this huge capital gains threshold. Geesh. Get a life, you capitalist swooning swine.
My alarm bells are ringing off their hooks because (1) wealth (well, the other guy’s wealth, anyway) is being demonized like dope being peddled on the playground, and (2) wealth redistribution is becoming as frighteningly commonplace as ugly biker tattoos on bored housewives.
Of course, the concepts of taxing the rich and giving to the poor, or at least putting the money into government coffers to be misspent, mishandled, and misappropriated in the name of the poor, has plagued America at least since we enjoyed the magnificent New Deal. Stuff that smells this bad has a way of just coming back up again.
However, this time around it’s more pervasive, more in your face, and will affect more Americans and more Americans as we Progress. When calculated across the entire U.S. population, the percentage of people who are now considered “wealthy” is relatively small. Just 2%. This is a key argument by people pushing this pap. But, this argument not only fails to satisfy, it belies the underlying goal.
The thresholds of $200,000 and $250,000, the current popular definitions of “rich,” are quite objective measurements. Granted, when you get into the monkey-business of calculating all the relevant variables in determining taxable income, the objective will suddenly feel as concrete as a warm pile of manure. Nevertheless, if we ignore the tax-law hijinks for a moment, a number is a number. So, now that we have this clean, objective definition of “rich,” why do it’s defenders find it relevant to justify these numbers in comparative terms? For example, the often used excuse for these dollar thresholds is that they only include 2% of the population -- that’s a comparative analysis.
So let’s walk the walk on this comparative thinking. If all of my countrymen drive a new BMW, am I poor because I drive a used Chevy? According to comparative reasoning, I am poor. The thinking is, if most others have more than I, than I must be poor and they must be rich.
But, wait. What if we hang out around Beverly Hills or any one of the other congregations of luxury? And, let’s say that I’ve traded my paid-up Chevy for a new Beemer (and its lease). Now, even I, big man on campus with the new BMW 3 Series, have begun to feel like one of the trod upon masses. These Beverly Hills folks wouldn’t give a new 3 series to their pimple-pocked 16 year-old son. He’d look soooo... “common.” And, here I am tooling about in my sad German buggy. What happened? Now, I’m poor. Is this really making much sense?
Or, we can go the other direction, which is where I believe the true defenders of this faith are headed, and compare that used Chevy to the millions of people on the planet who dream of owning a used Chevette just to have a place to sleep, let alone one that actually runs. Now, just owning a car that runs, even an old, rusty Chevette, makes me a wealthy man. With this logic, owning my own old Chevy entitles me to biddy-biddy-bum all day.
Let’s face it, nearly all Americans are ultra-wealthy if you start comparing us with the full planetary populace. Therefore, if we can’t buy everyone Beemers, we’ll all have to settle for bicycles. And, we’re not talking a new Shimano mountain bike with GPS and all the fixings. This is a WWII-era rusted frame with rotting rubber tires and no seat. This is what happens when we define wealth as a comparative term. Welcome to global economics.
I know many people who were surprised to learn that they have suddenly become wealthy. “That’s funny,” they say in puzzlement, “I didn’t feel a thing. My income didn’t increase and my bills didn’t go away. I still cannot afford to save for my child’s college and also save for any hope of retirement. My mortgage on my now greatly devalued house still eats up a good chunk of my income and my other bills are rising faster than high-tide. My interest income has dissolved and my investments are hardly a shadow of what they once were. And, if business continues downward, I’ll likely loose my job/business. How amazing to find out that I’m now rich.”
My answer, is “Don’t worry. Even under the new definitions, you won’t be rich for long if we continue to Progress any further.”
The raw number of “new rich” is somewhere between 2.5 and 3.2 million Americans. Keep your eye on this ball.
As the national debt skyrockets and government programs ballon, there will be huge pressure to continue redefining the “New Rich” to include more and more Americans. Further, there are multiple dials on this device. Not only can the ceiling ($200K/250K) be lowered, but the floor can easily be raised. Inflation can very quickly increase the number of “new rich” without lowering this ceiling.
Today it’s the mid-tier company exec, the small business owner, and the successful doctor, dentist, accountant or lawyer who we will label as “rich”. Tomorrow, it could be middle management, less successful professionals, and well-invested retirees. And, the next day?
Watch the bouncing balls. They are headed our way.
Here’s a start:
The war on alcohol.
The war on poverty.
The war on drugs.
The war on cancer.
The war on illiteracy.
The war on salt.
The war on fat.
The war on terror.
Did you realize that you may be the target of the latest war? That’s right.
If you make too much money, you can now put yourself in line and rub shoulders with cancer and terror. You -- you filthy, rich, sick bastard -- you are the new evil. So, just own up and get over it. We’re bringing the war to your doorstep and your wallet.
Certain commentators have called all of this “war on the rich” talk overblown squawking by the fanatical Right. After all, the intended rise in income taxes only raises income tax back to Clinton-era rates, right? And, the new -- as in never before heard of -- Obamacare tax on “investment income” from a house sale only applies to you money-grubbing overlords who make more than $200,000 individually ($250,000 jointly); and then, allegedly only to “investment income” exceeding $250,000 individually ($500,000 per couple).
So, what are you whining about? This new tax will only affect a small percentage of the population and only applies above and beyond this huge capital gains threshold. Geesh. Get a life, you capitalist swooning swine.
My alarm bells are ringing off their hooks because (1) wealth (well, the other guy’s wealth, anyway) is being demonized like dope being peddled on the playground, and (2) wealth redistribution is becoming as frighteningly commonplace as ugly biker tattoos on bored housewives.
Of course, the concepts of taxing the rich and giving to the poor, or at least putting the money into government coffers to be misspent, mishandled, and misappropriated in the name of the poor, has plagued America at least since we enjoyed the magnificent New Deal. Stuff that smells this bad has a way of just coming back up again.
However, this time around it’s more pervasive, more in your face, and will affect more Americans and more Americans as we Progress. When calculated across the entire U.S. population, the percentage of people who are now considered “wealthy” is relatively small. Just 2%. This is a key argument by people pushing this pap. But, this argument not only fails to satisfy, it belies the underlying goal.
The thresholds of $200,000 and $250,000, the current popular definitions of “rich,” are quite objective measurements. Granted, when you get into the monkey-business of calculating all the relevant variables in determining taxable income, the objective will suddenly feel as concrete as a warm pile of manure. Nevertheless, if we ignore the tax-law hijinks for a moment, a number is a number. So, now that we have this clean, objective definition of “rich,” why do it’s defenders find it relevant to justify these numbers in comparative terms? For example, the often used excuse for these dollar thresholds is that they only include 2% of the population -- that’s a comparative analysis.
So let’s walk the walk on this comparative thinking. If all of my countrymen drive a new BMW, am I poor because I drive a used Chevy? According to comparative reasoning, I am poor. The thinking is, if most others have more than I, than I must be poor and they must be rich.
But, wait. What if we hang out around Beverly Hills or any one of the other congregations of luxury? And, let’s say that I’ve traded my paid-up Chevy for a new Beemer (and its lease). Now, even I, big man on campus with the new BMW 3 Series, have begun to feel like one of the trod upon masses. These Beverly Hills folks wouldn’t give a new 3 series to their pimple-pocked 16 year-old son. He’d look soooo... “common.” And, here I am tooling about in my sad German buggy. What happened? Now, I’m poor. Is this really making much sense?
Or, we can go the other direction, which is where I believe the true defenders of this faith are headed, and compare that used Chevy to the millions of people on the planet who dream of owning a used Chevette just to have a place to sleep, let alone one that actually runs. Now, just owning a car that runs, even an old, rusty Chevette, makes me a wealthy man. With this logic, owning my own old Chevy entitles me to biddy-biddy-bum all day.
Let’s face it, nearly all Americans are ultra-wealthy if you start comparing us with the full planetary populace. Therefore, if we can’t buy everyone Beemers, we’ll all have to settle for bicycles. And, we’re not talking a new Shimano mountain bike with GPS and all the fixings. This is a WWII-era rusted frame with rotting rubber tires and no seat. This is what happens when we define wealth as a comparative term. Welcome to global economics.
I know many people who were surprised to learn that they have suddenly become wealthy. “That’s funny,” they say in puzzlement, “I didn’t feel a thing. My income didn’t increase and my bills didn’t go away. I still cannot afford to save for my child’s college and also save for any hope of retirement. My mortgage on my now greatly devalued house still eats up a good chunk of my income and my other bills are rising faster than high-tide. My interest income has dissolved and my investments are hardly a shadow of what they once were. And, if business continues downward, I’ll likely loose my job/business. How amazing to find out that I’m now rich.”
My answer, is “Don’t worry. Even under the new definitions, you won’t be rich for long if we continue to Progress any further.”
The raw number of “new rich” is somewhere between 2.5 and 3.2 million Americans. Keep your eye on this ball.
As the national debt skyrockets and government programs ballon, there will be huge pressure to continue redefining the “New Rich” to include more and more Americans. Further, there are multiple dials on this device. Not only can the ceiling ($200K/250K) be lowered, but the floor can easily be raised. Inflation can very quickly increase the number of “new rich” without lowering this ceiling.
Today it’s the mid-tier company exec, the small business owner, and the successful doctor, dentist, accountant or lawyer who we will label as “rich”. Tomorrow, it could be middle management, less successful professionals, and well-invested retirees. And, the next day?
Watch the bouncing balls. They are headed our way.
Happy Mother's Day to the Nanny State
05/09/10 01:16 PM Filed in: Beltway Buffoonery
Join me in wishing those who run the Nanny State -- those who want to be the Collective Mother -- a pointed (belated) Happy Mother’s Day. Enjoy the poem, savor the message, and sign this Mother’s Day wish to show your support for America and Freedom.
Happy Mother’s Day
Dearest Nanny State
You are so powerful
You are so great
You watch over us
With such great care
You eliminate differences
You make life fair
Your apron strings
They tie us tight
You spread the wealth
And define our rights
[click below to read the biting second half]
ObamaCare Strikes Again: 1099 Hell in a Handbasket
05/07/10 09:15 PM Filed in: Beltway Buffoonery | Legislative Lunacy
Are you ready for a tornado of 1099s?
If you run a business, large or small, are you ready to pony up your papers whenever you purchase $600 or more of any goods or services from any individual or company?
If you are a consumer are you ready to help pay for the billions of dollars in inane regulatory compliance that will be foisted upon you?
If you are an employee, are you ready to help offset these regulatory costs with reduced pay or more layoffs?
Are you all ready for the new level of control your government is working to exert over you and our economy?
How can anyone afford not to know this and speak out against it? Read More...
If you run a business, large or small, are you ready to pony up your papers whenever you purchase $600 or more of any goods or services from any individual or company?
If you are a consumer are you ready to help pay for the billions of dollars in inane regulatory compliance that will be foisted upon you?
If you are an employee, are you ready to help offset these regulatory costs with reduced pay or more layoffs?
Are you all ready for the new level of control your government is working to exert over you and our economy?
How can anyone afford not to know this and speak out against it? Read More...
The Droll Troll Inaugural Post
05/07/10 07:00 AM
Greetings and welcome! This inaugural post is a call to all who will listen. All who will be heard. All who have had enough of the waist-high, progressive ho-haah coming out of Washington D.C.
If you feel more and more disenfranchised every day; more distressed about the failures and malfeasance in your government; utterly and completely pissed off about what’s going on; then come, join me as a fellow Troll. Let’s work together and make our voices heard.
Read More...
If you feel more and more disenfranchised every day; more distressed about the failures and malfeasance in your government; utterly and completely pissed off about what’s going on; then come, join me as a fellow Troll. Let’s work together and make our voices heard.
Read More...